XMPP Council - 2011-11-23


  1. linuxwolf has left
  2. linuxwolf has joined
  3. linuxwolf has left
  4. linuxwolf has joined
  5. linuxwolf has left
  6. linuxwolf has joined
  7. linuxwolf has left
  8. linuxwolf has joined
  9. linuxwolf has left
  10. Tobias has joined
  11. Tobias has left
  12. Tobias has joined
  13. Tobias has left
  14. Tobias has joined
  15. Tobias has left
  16. Tobias has joined
  17. Tobias has left
  18. Tobias has joined
  19. ralphm has left
  20. Tobias has left
  21. Zash has joined
  22. linuxwolf has joined
  23. ralphm has joined
  24. Zash has joined
  25. stpeter has joined
  26. linuxwolf has left
  27. linuxwolf has joined
  28. Tobias has joined
  29. MattJ has joined
  30. MattJ The IETF is like one long roadshow
  31. ralphm Heh
  32. MattJ When they perform in London I'm going to buy tickets
  33. ralphm Do they have T-shirts with all venues and their dates, yet?
  34. stpeter ralphm: for those who've attended all the meetings, yes
  35. MattJ They wouldn't have t-shirts large enough
  36. stpeter MattJ: has a meeting in London been announced?
  37. MattJ stpeter, not that I'm aware of
  38. stpeter http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html
  39. stpeter nope
  40. waqas has joined
  41. Kev Righty.
  42. Kev Shall we have a meeting then? :)
  43. Tobias yup
  44. Kev 1) Roll call
  45. Kev I'm here.
  46. linuxwolf Jeebus
  47. linuxwolf her
  48. linuxwolf here even
  49. MattJ Hair
  50. MattJ *Here
  51. Kev ralphm: ?
  52. stpeter notes that linuxwolf is supposed to be on vacation right now
  53. Kev Bad linuxwolf, bad.
  54. linuxwolf notes that XSF doesn't feel quite like work work
  55. MattJ !
  56. linuxwolf kids decided to start pestering me just as Kev bangs the start gavel
  57. Kev pokes Ralph.
  58. ralphm here
  59. Kev Excellent.
  60. Kev 2) Selection of a new Chair.
  61. MattJ ETOOMANYMEETINGS
  62. Kev I'm happy to do this again, or happy for someone else to.
  63. Kev Anyone fancy cat herding?
  64. MattJ I'm happy for you to if you're happy to
  65. linuxwolf ditto
  66. Tobias same here
  67. stpeter another year of the Kev dictatorship?!? ;-)
  68. MattJ For the record if I was chair, the 30 minute meeting rule would be on the block
  69. MattJ So it's best Kev stays
  70. linuxwolf heh
  71. Kev stpeter: Benevolent.
  72. stpeter Kev: natch :)
  73. linuxwolf mostly benevolent (-;
  74. Kev linuxwolf: Benevolent when it's in my interests.
  75. linuxwolf heh
  76. ralphm +1 for kev
  77. ralphm also, I am experiencing a lot of lag
  78. Kev rubs his hands with evil glee
  79. stpeter heehee
  80. linuxwolf can I change my vote? (-;
  81. Kev ralphm: That's ok, you've done the important bit now, you can vote for everything else on-list :D
  82. ralphm hehe
  83. Kev Right.
  84. Kev 3) XEP-0068 Accept new version?
  85. Kev This was the x- stuff in http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0068-1.2.html, as I recall
  86. stpeter yes
  87. stpeter do you guys need the diff again? I posted it to the council@ list a while back
  88. Kev I don't, thanks.
  89. MattJ I do :)
  90. MattJ Looking for it
  91. Kev So, I was reading this earlier, and while I'm not opposed to dropping x-, especially if those smart IETF guys want us to, I'd like some more guidance in -68 about what to do instead, I think, to avoid conflicts.
  92. MattJ and... where's HAL, hmm
  93. stpeter http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2pre1
  94. MattJ HAL says this one: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2pre1
  95. MattJ Oh, you're faster than he is :)
  96. MattJ Ah yes, memory jogged
  97. Kev stpeter: I was wondering about maybe something like suggesting people use project-specific (or similar) names.
  98. Kev So as to reduce the chance of conflicts.
  99. linuxwolf at one point, I thought we'd suggested using Clark-notation with your own namespace
  100. Kev Or is that, too, in opposition to the X-Dash
  101. linuxwolf e.g. {http://example.com/protocol/foo}myfield
  102. stpeter there are some recommendations in the xdash I-D
  103. Kev stpeter: Right, but not in -68.
  104. stpeter http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash
  105. stpeter sure, I'd be fine with adding those to -68 as well
  106. stpeter there's not big hurry
  107. Kev I wonder if updating to match xdash is premature, too.
  108. stpeter I just don't to publish an RFC about how x- is bad while -68 says the opposite :)
  109. Kev stpeter: Duplication isn't strictly necessary, but some sort of onward pointer seems to be.
  110. Kev (Beyond the proposed "Don't use x- because xdash says not to)
  111. stpeter Kev: we could certainly wait at least until after the WGLC in the APPSAWG @ IETF
  112. MattJ "SHOULD identify a convention to allow local or implementation-specific extensions, and reserve delimeters for such uses as needed."
  113. Kev Excellent. My first vote of term is a -1. I feel good.
  114. ralphm what linuxwolf said
  115. ralphm alternatively, we have existing 'scoping' with pubsub# and muc#
  116. ralphm damn lag
  117. linuxwolf (-:
  118. MattJ Ok, idea... a note in -0068 about xdash potentially being the future?
  119. Kev So, agreement to hold off until a) WGLC and b) some suggestions for alternatives in a new 1.2?
  120. linuxwolf Kev: +1
  121. Kev I'm happy with a note saying "xdash looks like the future" right now, if people would rather that, yes.
  122. linuxwolf (to your suggestions)
  123. MattJ That way we acknowledge the xdash movement, without committing to it
  124. stpeter WFM
  125. Tobias Kev, sounds reasonable..so yes
  126. MattJ We need a "council note" element in XEPML :)
  127. stpeter heh
  128. Kev MattJ: I've suggested that before, I think.
  129. linuxwolf that's not a bad idea, actually
  130. MattJ I think you have
  131. stpeter notes that some RFCs contain "IESG Note" sections
  132. Kev (I say "I think", but what I really mean is "I'm very sure I have")
  133. linuxwolf that sounds like an AOB item to me (-:
  134. Kev Golly, time is getting on.
  135. MattJ Heh
  136. bear has joined
  137. Kev So, I think we've discussed this to death.
  138. Kev 4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dmuc3.html Accept as Experimental
  139. linuxwolf ah, less controversial items
  140. MattJ Heh
  141. Kev linuxwolf: Possibly :)
  142. linuxwolf </sarcasm>
  143. Kev So, my reading of this was (a few weeks ago) that it's a fourth DMUC spec, using pretty much the approach of the third (FMUC) with some uglies.
  144. Kev And that, given FMUC's mine, I'll pretty much defer to the rest of Council on whether to accept or not.
  145. MattJ Would you highlight the uglies (in an email if many)?
  146. MattJ I think I'll vote on list after reviewing both specs
  147. Kev That'd mean me re-reading. Let me scan now, I've not re-read this week.
  148. linuxwolf can you provide me a link to fmuc?
  149. MattJ The scary thing is that none of these XEPs are the way I would do it :P
  150. Kev http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0289.html
  151. linuxwolf MattJ: the best thing about standards is there's so many of them
  152. ralphm MattJ: submit a dmuc4 (we started at 0?)
  153. linuxwolf grazie
  154. MattJ There are two, mine, and everyone else's
  155. Kev MattJ: You may be solving a different problem - I think the drive for DMUC/FMUC at the moment is largely for slightly specialist deployments.
  156. linuxwolf oh, FMUC expires next week
  157. Kev Anyway, dmuc3 does things like sending rosters in a new namespace, instead of re-using the current MUC notation, or the iq:roster notation.
  158. Tobias i'd also be nice if new XEP on this topic would have a short section on comparison against the already existing approaches of nearly the same thing
  159. MattJ Kev, indeed, most of these are designed around different (but similar) requirements
  160. Kev It does message forwarding not using the message forwarding spec.
  161. MattJ By dropping some requirements you can vastly increase simplicity, which is where the divide comes from I think
  162. linuxwolf Kev: I think that's because this may be documenting existing work … prior to your msg-fwd work
  163. stpeter has been thinking about distributed chat again recently but hasn't had time to update his DMUC spec
  164. Kev linuxwolf: Oh. That wasn't my understanding, I hadn't realised that.
  165. ralphm linuxwolfnod
  166. Kev ralphm / linuxwolf: Do you know how long Trident have had this working for?
  167. linuxwolf I may be misinformed also
  168. Kev Anyway, this is looking like it's moving to a discussion on list, doesn't it.
  169. Kev So we've got two AOB items.
  170. Kev 5) Date of next meeting.
  171. linuxwolf it does … although ...
  172. Kev Does this time next week work for everyone?
  173. linuxwolf gah, slow down there TEx
  174. stpeter WFM
  175. Tobias WFM
  176. stpeter heh
  177. Kev linuxwolf: Only 9minutes left!
  178. linuxwolf -1 to next week
  179. MattJ wfm
  180. ralphm Kev I don't know, the document reads like an existing thing
  181. linuxwolf I'm in China
  182. linuxwolf again
  183. Kev Everyone ok for the same time in a fortnight?
  184. MattJ linuxwolf, council meetings too democratic to join from China?
  185. MattJ wfm
  186. linuxwolf I think I can make it in two weeks … I'd have to compare the times
  187. linuxwolf are we still looking at 1700 UTC?
  188. ralphm I can do next week. I am in San Francisco from 6-15 dec
  189. stpeter poor linuxwolf will be flying across the big lake again soon
  190. linuxwolf /sigh
  191. Tobias in two weeks works for me too
  192. linuxwolf and I won't have any status until the way back
  193. Kev Will we have anything to discuss next week to make it worth having a meeting with linuxwolf voting onlist?
  194. Kev Or shall we do the week after and have Ralph vote onlist?
  195. stpeter IMHO, week after
  196. Kev (Or leave it until we have something to discuss)
  197. linuxwolf I'm pretty sure that I'll be in the air for next week
  198. linuxwolf my trip is 11/29 to 12/09
  199. Kev By the time Ralph's back you're looking at 21st Dec, which is pretty close to the Christmas break.
  200. ralphm Kev: sure. I might be able to attend, but it'll be my first full day at Mochi, so probably no.
  201. stpeter will get busy on XEPs again now that he has completed his penultimate IETF meeting with IESG responsibilities
  202. Kev Ok, so, I propose we leave it until we have something to discuss, and then have a meeting with 4 members and one onlist, whenever that is.
  203. MattJ stpeter, congratulations :)
  204. linuxwolf sounds good to me
  205. MattJ Kev, +1
  206. linuxwolf ping?
  207. Kev pong?
  208. linuxwolf wow … burst of lag
  209. Tobias Kev, +1
  210. Kev Ok, then.
  211. Kev (I'm assuming Ralph isn't opposed to not having meetings he can't make)
  212. stpeter heh
  213. Kev 6) Any other business
  214. Kev Council note in XEPs and GSoC from Peter.
  215. MattJ Yes, I haven't congratulated Tobias yet :)
  216. linuxwolf I think 1700 UTC is 0100 CST
  217. ralphm I am not opposed to that
  218. Tobias isn't GSoC something for the board?
  219. Kev Tobias: Council typically is heavily involved.
  220. Kev By which we really mean Kevin is typically heavily involved, and he's on Council :)
  221. ralphm haha
  222. Tobias Kev, ahh..okay... -)
  223. linuxwolf heh
  224. Kev But Council are part of voting on projects.
  225. stpeter will have time to help with GSoC in 2012
  226. Kev stpeter: What did you want to discuss?
  227. linuxwolf stpeter: 4 more months? (-:
  228. ralphm linuxwolfisn't that perfect timing for when you get back from karaoke?
  229. stpeter Kev: I had a tickler item on my calendar from months and months ago for us to get coordinated about GSoC earlier in the cycle this time
  230. linuxwolf ralphm: heh, we'll have to see
  231. stpeter Kev: we can discuss at a future meeting
  232. linuxwolf consider us tickled?
  233. stpeter yep
  234. Kev I was intending to tickle when Google announced GSoC '12 (assuming they do)
  235. stpeter I'll bring it up again at the next meeting
  236. Kev So, the other thing was Council notes in XEPs.
  237. linuxwolf +1 from me
  238. stpeter Kev: I think we decided we wanted to think about it earlier
  239. ralphm For the record, we have a FOSDEM devroom
  240. linuxwolf yay
  241. Kev Is there anything for us to discuss? Does someone want to volunteer to update the stylesheet?
  242. ralphm and will be talking about it in 1.5h
  243. Kev ralphm: Yes, that's great thanks. Sorry I can't make that meeting.
  244. linuxwolf I can take a look at it, but no firm commit from me yet
  245. Tobias and the XSL for the PDF publishing part... :)
  246. Kev Lovely, action item for linuxwolf.
  247. Kev And for Tobias.
  248. Kev Anything else?
  249. stpeter Kev: that can be the first section of the document, doesn't need a special XML element, I think
  250. ralphm or is it 20:00 UTC?
  251. Kev stpeter: WFM.
  252. MattJ 20:00
  253. linuxwolf yeah, right when I have a doc appt
  254. ralphm my train is pulling into the station
  255. ralphm bang!
  256. Kev Ok, I think we're done.
  257. linuxwolf talking about me becoming a cyborg
  258. Kev Thanks all :)
  259. Kev does the first gavel banging of the new term.
  260. Kev I'll send out minutes as per usual, delayed as per usual :)
  261. ralphm yay
  262. stpeter woot!
  263. linuxwolf /nod
  264. stpeter thanks, guys
  265. Kev Speaking of that, are the room logs working again?
  266. Kev No.
  267. MattJ They were broken?
  268. linuxwolf I think any meeting over the next two weeks will be difficult for me … so we'll see
  269. Kev Have been since the upgrade, yes.
  270. linuxwolf ugh
  271. stpeter wanders off to do some PTO things during his paid time off, but will be back in time for the FOSDEM chat
  272. Tobias k...see you guys later or so...heading home now
  273. MattJ I'll take a look at that too then
  274. Kev Thanks Tobias.
  275. Kev Thanks MattJ.
  276. stpeter I hadn't realized the logs were gone
  277. Kev HTTP 500.
  278. linuxwolf eek
  279. Kev I only care because that's what I use for pulling the minutes off.
  280. Kev I should really try out this live minute taking thing Board do.
  281. Tobias has joined
  282. Tobias has joined
  283. linuxwolf has left
  284. ralphm has left
  285. waqas has left
  286. stpeter has left
  287. Tobias has left
  288. Tobias has joined
  289. linuxwolf has joined
  290. linuxwolf has left
  291. Tobias has left